Jackson Free Press

I assume this means that Justice Roberts, being such a strong proponent of federal control of the states, will be just as concerned about the "patchwork" nature of death-penalty laws in this country?

New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives. The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.

It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.
The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.

Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules. "If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.

From AP

Previous Comments

ID

171806

Comment

I can't agree with Roberts, but I think his point has more to do with federal laws rather than uniformity of state laws per se. We've seen some of this conflict with, e.g., medicinal marijuana statutes that don't keep the feds out. So I can see some of his point, but the Ninth Amendment clearly says that when federal and state jurisdiction overlap, the state's rights are not to be abridged--except in cases involving equal protection and due process (a la the Fourteenth Amendment), which has for the past 80 years been interpreted (thank God) as also including the Bill of Rights (a la the incorporation clause). If a "patchwork" problem presents itself, the constitutional remedy is more flexible federal laws--not restrictions on state law. On the plus side, if this represents any kind of federalist tendencies we can at least believe that he's not one of those nutcase Bush appointees who believes that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional. (You may be wondering how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional, but these folks are not generally known for their firm grasp of logic.) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-05T21:45:24-06:00

ID

171807

Comment

Well, there is one other area where federal jurisdiction trumps state jurisdiction: the Commerce Clause. I suppose a case could be made that federal anti-drug laws constitute regulation of interstate commerce. I don't know. I'm not exactly Clarence Darrow over here. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-06T00:07:03-06:00